ArticlePolymers2026
Shear Bond Strength of Additively and Subtractively Manufactured CAD/CAM Restorative Materials After Different Surface Treatments and Adhesive Strategies: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Polymers, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Advances in Chairside and Restorative Dental Materials: A Systematic Review of Material Properties, Adhesive Strategies, and Long-Term Performance.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to evaluate the effects of different surface treatments and adhesive systems on the shear bond strength (SBS) of additively manufactured (AM) and subtractively manufactured (SM) restorative materials. A total 675 rectangular specimens of three AM (Saremco Crowntec/SC, VarseoSmile CrownPlus/VC, and VarseoSmile TriniQ/VT) and two SM (Vita Enamic/VE and Cerasmart/CS) restorative materials were fabricated. Each material was randomly divided into three groups regarding surface treatments: control/C, sandblasting/S, and etching/E. Following surface treatments, each AM and SM restorative material was then divided into three subgroups (15 specimens/subgroup) on the basis of adhesive systems (etch-and-rinse, self-etch, and universal). All specimens were thermocycled at 10,000 cycles, 5-55 °C, 30 s dwell time, and tested under SBS until failure, and failure types were examined under a stereomicroscope. Representative specimens were examined by SEM to evaluate fracture morphology. Statistical analysis was set at
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.